Historical Contexts and Logics of American Expansionism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
R. L. R. Historical Contexts and Logics of American Expansionism NAKATANI Yoshikazu* (1) Introduction The period of 1978-80 is regarded as a revolutionary turning point in the world’s social and economic history (Harvey 2005: 1). A force called globalization" has been felt around the world. Globalization debates have been prevalent in the social sciences from the 1990s onward, taking the place of debates on postmodernism. In retrospect, in the latter half of the 20th century, we were confronted with debates ranging from the Miliband-Poulantzas debate" (1960s-70s), state-deviation debates" in what was then West Germany, to the bringing the state back in" movement in the American political science, and now globalization debates have gained prominence. After the demise of the Soviet bloc, the US gained an ability to act unilaterally, paving the way for the Bush (Jr.) administration’s declaration of a preemptive military attack" and a preventive use of force" in the aftermath of September 11". The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and the Coalition of the willing" was conducted without the support of the UN Security Council and was justi ed as a preemptive strategy because of the assumed presence of weapons of mass destruction. In order to understand the American policies exempli ed by the invasion of Iraq, the NATO intervention in Kosovo, and the 1990 Persian Gulf War, one must examine the development of American hegemony and place the current state of affairs in historical context. In 1885 John W. Burgess, one of the founders of American political science, expressed his vision of America from a historical perspective; . the American commonwealth is already based upon ideal principles and has advanced many states in an ideal development; that it has only to be freed from some crudities and excrescences, and to pursue steadily the general course towards which its history points, in order to reach the perfection of its ideal; that, therefore, we need no revolution of our system, which would in fact drive us from the line which leads to the attainment of our ideal: and that we are compelled to regard those who should favor and advise such a revolution as the enemies in principle of the American republic and of the political civilization of the world (Burgess 1885: 424-25). His speech was delivered against the background of structural change" at home and abroad in American history. Facing a crisis, he considered the prime mission of the ideal American * Professor, Faculty of Law, Ritsumeikan University Ritsumeikan Law Review No. 25, 2008 commonwealth to be the perfection of the Aryan genius for political civilization, and declared this to be the transcendental mission of the American commonwealth" (ibid., 407). Almost one century later, President George W. Bush has declared a war on terror that pits freedom and democracy against totalitarianism and terrorism. The policies collectively known as the Bush Doctrine" include strategies such as preemptive military attacks, the preventive use of force, and regime change for dealing with rogue states and international terrorism (National Security Strategy of the United States of A merica 2002; National Security Council 2006). There are two basic forces behind these policies: the Cheney-Rumsfeld- Wolfowitz axis and the neoconservative desire to preserve American hegemony in connection with American geopolitical and geoeconomic strategies.1) One similarity found in Burgess’ writings and statements made by the Bush administration is the perception of the United States’ ineluctable role and moral obligation to guide global society along what it deems to be the right path. Globalization, often described as the compression of time and space, can also be characterized by the promotion of an open economy and the further liberation of capital. Expansionism has altered the relations between America and the world since Burgess’ time, both challenging and enabling the spread of American hegemony, and distance can no longer be equated with security, as was evident in the 9/11 attacks. On the other hand, believing that American values of democracy, liberalism, and capitalism are universally applicable, the US has engaged in a military intervention by the coalition of the willing," achieving regime change in Iraq although it was accomplished in an authoritarian manner.2) The American values just mentioned converge in the inevitable peace thesis," according to which peace and not war is pursued for the sake of friendly commercial exchange and trade. The expansion of liberal democracy, moreover, is viewed as a prerequisite for peace under the premise that democracies don’t ght each other (known as the democratic peace thesis") . It is in light of these assumptions that the Bush administration confronted what it called an axis of evil," as if alluding to J. S. Mill’s argument that the guardians of liberty possess the right to resort to physical force to forestall the spread of barbarism and tyranny (Mill 1973: 409). As a result of the administration’s efforts to coercively promote democracy and American values, the United States has been labeled a crusader state". It means an informal empire" and its policies a new form of imperialism." Hegemony" is an intellectual and moral leadership" (Gramsci 1971: 57). It has an ideological function and intellectual and moral foundations for material (re)production in a 1) Rupert and Solomon 2006. The axis contains a rivalry between democratic imperialists" and assertive nationalists." Daalder and Lindsay 2003: 46-47. 2) Democratization relies on the efforts of each person. The exportation of democracy" can often be traced to the paternalistic haughtiness of the exporter, and democratization under or by the military control of another country inspires repulsion and resistance unless there is some voluntary reception as in Japan under the occupation or central and eastern European states after the collapse of Soviet block. R. L. R. Historical Contexts and Logics of American Expansionism society and world system constrained by the historical context of path-dependency". When a country becomes a hegemon, its hegemony enables it to in uence production systems, and can also create the intellectual foundation for new forms of socioeconomic organization at home and abroad. In these respects, (re)construction of the capitalistic production relations requires a norm of capitalistic comodi cation. Neo-liberalism is the main thrust of a hegemonic discourse for promoting and restructuring a capitalization of the world economies, and the Bush Doctrine also re ects the ways the administration strives to strengthen American hegemony. Political society is able to use hegemony as a tool to facilitate the formation and cohesiveness of any given territorially-bounded-sovereign nation-states that enjoy various levels of relative autonomy in the international political arena, and although the capitalist nation-state presuppose the institutional separation between the state and society, the inherent contradictions and tensions in society demand political interventions or extra- economic functions. Re ecting these necessities, the capitalist state appears to be an integral state" in which it shows itself to be a mutually compatible amalgamation of liberal political and liberal economic systems. When it comes to international politics, a state is a sovereign endogenous container distinct from the exogenous international system. In such a framework, globalization is not a phenomenon that occurs outside of the international system, but a process that is caused by the intensi cation of interdependency and the interconnectedness of social relations. On one level, we may observe that nation and state power have declined under globalization. At the same time, there are, paradoxically, many reasons to believe that the role of the state is strengthened by the reconstruction of the socioeconomic system in response to globalization. We can tentatively divide American history into three main periods: ⅰ from its founding to Reconstruction, ⅱ from the turn of the century to the end of the 2nd World War, ⅲ post-world war years. Here the paper will at rst trace brie y the main currents of territorial expansion, and next focus on the emerging features of the dominant rhetoric and logic inherent in American supra-territorialism. (2) Historical process of expansionism ⅰ the rst period: accumulation process by annexation America is regarded as the place to realize possessive individualism," and its political aims have been traditionally bound to keep and develop the market oriented social relations. The politico-economic system is, therefore, based on the principles of freedom to pursue each one’s needs and demands. These possessivism incessantly gave an impetus to expand its territory towards the West and the South-West under the self-image as a liberator. In these context frontier" was regarded as a territory to be integrated into the Ritsumeikan Law Review No. 25, 2008 Free Empire" rather than as a given boundary. America ceaselessly extended its domination over the continent, and its territory almost quadrupled in comparison to the foundation. In this phase expansionism was closely connected to annexation of land and the rise of industrialization in the Northeast came into con ict with the slavocracy of the South. ⅱ the second period: socioeconomic reconstruction and the rise of liberalism After the Civil War and the Reconstruction, the social and economic structure radically changed into the urban-industrial